“No Riot at the National Assembly or National Election Commission ... Defense of Sovereignty, Not Insurrection”: Yoon’s Lawyers Seek Acquittal

[Financial News] The defense team for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was sentenced to a heavy penalty in the first trial on charges including leading an insurrection over the Dec. 3 declaration of emergency martial law, asked the appeals court to acquit him in its closing arguments, saying, “There was no ‘riot’—a requirement for establishing the crime of insurrection—at either the National Assembly or the National Election Commission of the Republic of Korea.”
The Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 12-1 (High Court Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Jo Jin-gu and Kim Mina) held a hearing on the 5th for former President Yoon, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, Korean National Police Agency Commissioner General Jo Ji-ho, former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Kim Bong-sik and others, and continued hearing closing arguments from the defendants’ side.
In morning arguments, former President Yoon’s defense team presented call records, CCTV footage and police radio network records, maintaining that the control of police and military personnel deployed to the National Assembly was intended to maintain order.
The defense said, “What former President Yoon asked of senior police officials at the safe house in Samcheong-dong was to prevent accidents caused by crowding and maintain public order,” and argued, “The police independently decided, based on the situation at the scene, to restrict access to the National Assembly and allow entry after checking people’s identities; the president gave no specific orders to seal off the National Assembly or arrest lawmakers.”
The defense presented call records with Commissioner General Jo as evidence pointing to chronological inconsistencies in the special counsel’s allegations. The defense team said, “The first call between former President Yoon and Commissioner General Jo came at a time when National Assembly officials were already being allowed to enter, and its content was limited to checking on the situation and offering encouragement. If he had ordered the arrest of lawmakers or the blocking of a plenary vote, the matter would not have ended with a one-off call lasting only a few dozen seconds; specific follow-up calls pressing for action or issuing reprimands should have followed,” it argued.
The defense also rejected the characterization of the National Assembly entry by troops from the Army Special Warfare Command’s 707th Special Mission Group, the 1st Airborne Special Forces Brigade and the Capital Defense Command as a ‘riot.’ The defense team said, “The 707th Special Mission Group, unfamiliar with the National Assembly’s internal layout, milled about before withdrawing immediately after the plenary vote, and did not use physical force against citizens or National Assembly officials at the scene.” It added, “The order for the 1st Airborne Special Forces Brigade to forcibly remove lawmakers was also unrelated to former President Yoon’s instructions, and statements by those involved are directly contradicted by the actual times of the calls.”
In subsequent arguments concerning the NEC, the defense also contended that the inspections at the time were a legitimate exercise of the head of state’s constitutional powers. The defense team emphasized, “The troops deployed to the scene did not forcibly remove servers or arrest or detain staff, and carried out their duties calmly, including preserving the scene and securing the perimeter,” adding, “Given that lower courts have already acquitted military commanders deployed to the NEC, a ‘riot’—the use of force sufficient to disturb the peace of a locality—cannot be established.”
At the afternoon hearing, after closing arguments conclude, former President Yoon will personally deliver his final statement. The court plans to hear final statements from Yoon and the other defendants and set a date for the verdict. 

[email protected] Lee Chang-hoon Reporter